In April, 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals denied my request to have my lawsuit, Daniel C. Re v. PERS decided by judges who are not PERS members.  The Court held that the rule of necessity applied to this case and that the elected judges of the Court of Appeals, all of whom were PERS members and whose own retirement benefits depended on the outcome of the case, had to decide the case.  The Court of Appeals made this ruling by deferring to prior Oregon Supreme Court decisions, even though the laws that applied to the Supreme Court were different that the laws that applied to the Court of Appeals.

Under the rule of necessity, judges with a conflict of interest must decide a case despite having a conflict of interest that would disqualify them, if it is impossible to appoint judges to decide the case who do not have a conflict of interest.  In this case, there is a specific statute, ORS 2.570(3), that allows the Oregon Supreme Court to appoint temporary judges to the Court of Appeals, if all of the elected Court of Appeals are disqualified to decide the case.  Since all of the elected Court of Appeals judges are PERS members, they all have a disqualifying conflict of interest.  The Court recognized this fact in its opinion but failed to apply ORS 2.570(3).

It appears to me that the Court of Appeals felt that since the Oregon Supreme Court had first ruled that the rule of necessity applied in PERS cases, only the Supreme Court could review that issue.  Therefore, I will ask Oregon Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals decision.  The Supreme Court, however, is not required to grant this request.

If the Supreme Court grants the request it will give the Court, for the first time, the opportunity to review the applicability of the rule of necessity to PERS cases.  And, hopefully, it will result in a detailed explanation from the Supreme Court as to why or why not the rule of necessity applies to the Court of Appeals when PERS cases are decided.

If, however, the Court denies my request,  it will mean that the Supreme Court will not provide an explanation as to why the rule of necessity applies to PERS cases in the Court of Appeals.  In that case, I will examine all other options available to me to have this issue determined by judges who are not PERS members and whose own retirement benefits do not depend on the outcome of the case.

Dan Re


About Dan Re

I am an attorney who has lived in Bend and practiced law since 1981. In educating myself about the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), I was shocked at how the PERS laws were changed by the legislature, once legislators were allowed to join PERS in 1971, 26 years after PERS was first created. Those changes personally benefitted the legislators who made them at the direct financial expense of the people they were elected to represent. That is wrong and I intend to change it. In 2009, I started a non-profit 501(c)(4) corporation, In RE The People, Inc., for the purpose of informing concerned citizens of what happened regarding PERS and other issues of social and civic importance. I then created this blog to further that objective.
This entry was posted in fundamental fairness, Oregon judges, Oregon PERS, public employee retirement system, rule of necessity and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s